Skip to main content

Full text of "Deducing the nature of dark matter from direct and indirect detection experiments in the absence of collider signatures of new physics"

See other formats


Deducing the nature of dark matter from direct and indirect detection experiments in 

the absence of colhder signatures of new physics 



Maria Beltran 

Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The University of Chicago 

Dan Hooper 

Theoretical Astrophysics, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and 
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The University of Chicago 



Edward W. Kolb 
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Enrico Fermi Institute, 
" and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago 

o ; 

, Zosia A. C. Krusberg 

CN) . Department of Physics, The University of Chicago 

|JL ' Despite compelling arguments that significant discoveries of physics beyond the standard model 

) , are likely to be made at the Large Hadron Collider, it remains possible that this machine will make 

■ no such discoveries, or will make no discoveries directly relevant to the dark matter problem. In this 

' article, we study the ability of astrophysical experiments to deduce the nature of dark matter in such 

a scenario. In most dark matter studies, the relic abundance and detection prospects are evaluated 
I I . within the context of some specific particle physics model or models (e.g., supersymmetry) . Here, 

• cissuming a single weakly interacting massive particle constitutes the universe's dark matter, we 

attempt to develop a model-independent approach toward the phenomenology of such particles in 
^ ^1 the absence of any discoveries at the Large Hadron Collider. In particular, we consider generic 

^ ' fermionic or scalar dark matter particles with a variety of interaction forms, and calculate the 

I corresponding constraints from and sensitivity of direct and indirect detection experiments. The 

I I , results may provide some guidance in disentangling information from future direct and indirect 

detection experiments. 

(N ■ 

Kf" I PACS numbers: 95.35.+d;95.30.Cq,95.85.Ry,95.55.Ka; FERMILAB-PUB-08-308-A 

'NT , 

00 . 

m ■ 
cn ■ 



I. INTRODUCTION 



00 

. The consensus of the astrophysics community is that a large fraction of the universe's mass consists of non-luminous, 
QQ ■ non-baryonic material, known as dark matter Although the nature of this substance or substances remains 
, unknown, weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) represent a particularly attractive and well motivated class 
' of possibilities. Although the most studied WIMP candidate is the lightest neutralino in supersymmetric models, 
. ^ , many other possibilities have also been proposed, including Kaluza-Klein states in models with universal 0] or 
^ ■ warped ^ extra dimensions, stable states in Little Higgs theories @, and many others. 

5h ' In each of the above mentioned cases, many new particle species, in addition to the WIMP itself, are expected to lie 
. . . 1 within the discovery reach of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), making the task of deducing the nature of the WIMP 
immeasurably simpler. In supersymmetry, for example, gluinos and squarks are expected to be produced prolifically. 
By studying the cascades produced in the decays of such particles, the masses of several superparticle masses, including 
the lightest neutralino, are likely to be determined. If squarks, gluinos, and other additional superpartners are too 
heavy to be produced, however, the lightest neutralino will also be very difficult to study at the LHC, even if rather 
light itself. More generally speaking, in the absence of heavier particles with shared quantum numbers, WIMPs will 
not be easily detected or studied at the LHC. Although an electroweak scale, cold thermal relic particle, if it exists, 
would almost certainly be produced at the LHC, identifying and characterizing the nature of the WIMP simply from 
missing energy studies is a daunting, perhaps impossible, task 0, [1] . 

Although the usual list of prospective WIMPs mentioned above contains some very attractive and well-motivated 
candidates for dark matter, there are certainly many possible forms of dark matter that have not yet been considered. 
As the first observations of particle dark matter might well come from direct and/or indirect detection experiments, 
it is possible that these results may be misinterpreted as a result of theoretical bias, anticipating dark matter to have 
the properties of a neutralino or other often studied candidates. To avoid such confusion, model-independent studies 
of dark matter phenomenology can play an important role (for previous work in this direction, see Refs. 0,i[ll). 

In this article, rather than consider a WIMP candidate from a specific theoretical model, we study model- 



2 



independent WIMPs with different combinations of spins and interaction forms with standard model particles. These 
interactions are limited only by the requirements of Lorentz invariance and a consequent WIMP abundance consistent 
with cosmological observations. For each spin and interaction form, we evaluate the constraints from and prospects for 
direct and indirect detection of WIMPs in current and future experiments. Although we will be forced to adopt some 
assumptions in order to make the problems at hand tractable, we attempt to be as general as possible throughout our 
study. Beyond the starting point that the dark matter is a WIMP in the form of a single species of a cold thermal 
relic, we adopt only two assumptions: 

1. Any new particle species in addition to the WIMP has a mass much larger than the WIMP. 

2. The WIMP interactions with standard model particles are dominated by those of one form (scalar, vector, etc.). 

An implication of the first assumption is that the WIMP's thermal abundance is not affected by resonances or 
coannihilations. At a later stage of this paper, we will discuss the impact of relaxing these assumptions. 

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Sec.[IIlwe explore the phenomenology of a generic fermionic 
WIMP, including its annihilation cross section and relic abundance, elastic scattering cross section and direct detection 
prospects, and indirect detection prospects in the form of a neutrino flux from the Sun and gamma rays and charged 
particles produced in galactic annihilations. In Sec. IIIIl we repeat this exercise for the case of a scalar WIMP. In each 
of these two sections, we also consider dark matter candidates from specific particle physics frameworks and discuss 
how they fit into our model-independent analysis. In Sec. II VI we summarize our results and present our conclusions. 



II. FERMIONIC DARK MATTER 



We begin with the case of a fermionic WIMP, and study five types of interactions consistent with the requirement 
of Lorentz invariance. As mentioned in the Introduction, we assume that the WIMP is the only new particle at the 
electroweak scale. This enables us to describe the interaction between WIMPs and standard model fermions in terms 
of an effective field theory, in which we keep only the first term in the (q/M)'^ expansion of the heavy propagator term 
(here, q and M are the momentum and mass of the propagator, respectively). We note that the effective interaction 
Lagrangians are not invariant under the standard model SU{2)w x U{1)y gauge symmetry; however, this is acceptable 
as our theory need only be valid at energy scales below the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. 

To begin, we only consider WIMP annihilations to fermion-antifermion pairs, neglecting for the moment the possibil- 
ity of final states that include gauge or Higgs bosons. In particular, we consider the following interaction Lagrangians 
between two fermionic WIMPs (x) and two standard model fermions (/): 

Scalar (S): if = ^XXff (1) 
Pseudoscalar (P): ^ = ^^^^^f^^f (2) 



G 



Vector (V): ^ = (3) 
Axial Vector (A): = ^^^m^S;^/^^^^/ (4) 



G 



Tensor (T): if = a f . (5) 

We will now proceed to calculate the annihilation cross section, relic density, and elastic scattering cross sections 
for a fermionic WIMP. 



A. Fermionic WIMP Annihilation and Relic Density 



In each of the cases listed above, we are interested in determining the cosmological density of WIMPs produced 
in the early universe. The first step is to calculate the annihilation cross sections to fermion-antifermion pairs as a 



3 



function of the Mandelstam variable s for each of the five cases. The result is 



crp 



Am 



f 



327r 



/ 



327r 
1 

32^ 
1 

32^ 



s - 4M2 



/ s — Am} 
s - AMI 



I s — Am} 
s - 4M2 



4m , 



S-4M2 



/ 



c/1 



4m2 



s - 4M2 



- 4Af: 



4M2 . 



6s + AMC 



(s - Amj) 




{s - AMD - 


Am]) 
— -f 


3 s 




(s - AMD - 


Ami) 
— H 


3s 




8(s-4Af2)(s 


-4mJ) 



4mi 



Am, 



3s 



4to, 



(6) 
(7) 
(8) 
(9) 
(10) 



where the sum is over the final state fermion species and Cf are the color factors, equal to 3 for quarks and 1 for 
leptons. 

To determine the density of relic WIMPs, we solve the Boltzmann equation: 



~dt 



+ iHn^ = -{a\v\) - (n^'^f ] , 



(11) 



where H = a/ a ^ y/8TTf)/3Mp\ is the Hubble rate and {(j\v\) is the thermally averaged WIMP annihilation cross 
section [TT| . 

In thermal equilibrium, the number density of WIMPs is given by: 



9 



27r 



3/2 



exp 



T 



(12) 



where g = 2 is the number of degrees of freedom of a fermionic WIMP. At T 3> M^, the number density of WIMPs was 
very close to its equilibrium value and nearly as abundant as any other particle. As the temperature dropped below 
M^, however, the number density was exponentially suppressed until, eventually, the annihilation and production 
rates became much smaller than the expansion rate, and the species froze out of equilibrium. Since we are considering 
cold thermal relics, freeze-out occurred when WIMPs were non-relativistic and had velocities much smaller than 
unity. Substituting s « AM^ + M^v^ to Eqs. ([ MTU]) , and expanding in powers of the relative velocity between two 
annihilating WIMPs up to order , we find 



as\v\ 



ap\v\ 



av\v\ 



ctaM 



^Y.Ghc,Ml^l-m}/Ml 
f 

f 

f 

^Y.G\jCfMl^l-m)/Ml 
f 

^E^T,/ Cf Ml ^1 - mj/M 



Ml 



Ml 



1 

12 



Ml 



Ml ' 12 



^ 2- 



7 + 



Ml, 



Ml, 



Numerical solutions of the Boltzmann equation yield a relic density of [l/ 

1.04 X lO^Xi. 



Mpiy/g^{a + ib/xp) 



(13) 
(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 



4 

where xp = fn^jTp^ Tp is the temperature at freeze-out, is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom available 
at freeze-out (17* « 92 for a freeze-out temperature between the bottom quark and W boson masses) , and a and h are 
terms in the partial wave expansion of the WIMP annihilation cross section, a\v\ — a + bv^ + O(u^). Evaluation of 
xp leads to 

gM^Mpi(a + 6b/xp) ] 

where c is an order unity parameter determined numerically. WIMPs with electroweak-scale masses and couplings 
generically freeze out at temperatures in the range of approximately xp ~ 20 to 30. 

In the absence of resonances and coannihilations an annihilation cross section of {(j\v\) ~ 3 x 10~^^ cm'^/s w 1 
pb is required (at the temperature of freeze-out, T ~ to-^/20) to obtain a relic abundance in agreement with the dark 
matter abundance measured by WMAP, fi^/i^ = 0.1099 ± 0.0062 [li^. Although the annihilation cross section in the 
low- velocity limit (relevant to indirect dark matter searches) is not much lower than this value in many models, it can 
be considerably suppressed at low velocities if terms in the annihilation cross section proportional to dominate the 
cross section {i.e., if a ^ b). Furthermore, if the depletion of WIMPs in the early universe occurs through resonance 
channels or via coannihilations with other states, the low velocity annihilation cross section can be considerably lower 
than the value at freeze-out. For more details regarding the relic density calculation, see Refs. (l^. [isj. 

In Fig. [1] we show the thermal relic density of a fermionic dark matter candidate with scalar, pseudoscalar, 
vector, and axial interactions. We do not include a separate figure for the tensor case, since its annihilation cross 
section is nearly identical to the vector case. As discussed in the Introduction, these results were found under 
the assumptions that a given WIMP's interactions are dominated by those of only one form (scalar, vector, etc.), 
that the WIMP's interactions are mediated by particles much heavier than the WIMP mass (thus avoiding the 
possibility of resonance effects), and that the WIMP is considerably lighter than any other new particles (thus 
making coannihilations unimportant). Also, we include only annihilations to fermion-antifermion pairs (neglecting 
the possibility of final states including gauge or Higgs bosons). 

In each frame of Fig. [U we show the relic density for various values of the effective couplings. In the upper 
left and upper right frames, we show results for couplings of G/ x (IGeV/m/) = 10~^, lO"*", 10~^, 10~^, and 10"''' 
GeV~^. This proportionality of the couplings to the fermion mass is predicted for Yukawa couplings of a Higgs 
mediated interaction, for example. In the remaining four frames, we show results for the case of universal couplings, 
Gf = 10-^10-^10-^10-^ audio-'* CeV-^. 

If any of our assumptions are broken, the resulting thermal relic abundance will be altered as well. In particu- 
lar, resonances (or more generally, a departure from 2M^ <C M^) or coannihilations could potentially reduce the 
abundances shown in Fig. [T] considerably. Additionally, annihilations to final states such as gauge or Higgs bosons, 
if significant, could also reduce the relic density. The effective couplings described in Fig. [T] that lead to the correct 
relic abundance, therefore, can be thought of as approximate maximal values allowed for a thermal WIMP.* Smaller 
couplings are possible if appropriate departures are made from our set of assumptions. 

B. Direct Detection 

Although only weakly coupled to baryons, WIMPs can occasionally scatter elastically with atomic nuclei, providing 
the potential for detection. Direct detection experiments attempt to measure the recoil energies of nuclei resulting 
from such interactions. The interactions leading to the elastic scattering of WIMPs with nuclei can be classified as 
either spin-independent or spin-dependent. In the former case, WIMPs scatter coherently with an entire nucleus, 
leading to a cross section that scales with the square of the atomic number of the target nuclei. In the later case, 
the WIMP couples to the spin of the target nucleus. In the relevant non-relativistic limit, scalar, vector, and tensor 
couplings result in a spin-independent interaction, whereas axial couplings lead to a spin-dependent interaction [isf . 
In this subsection, we focus on the spin-independent elastic scattering of WIMPs with nuclei, as the direct detection 
constraints for this class of interactions are considerably more stringent. In the next subsection, we will return to 
spin-dependent scattering within the context of WIMP capture in the Sun. 



Xp —\n. 



^ Larger couplings may be possible if the density of WIMPs is enhanced by post-freezeout decays of other particles or other non-thermal 
production mechanisms. For example, see 



5 



10* 




Fermion, Scalar Int._ 




104 


102 




"-^^ 1 




102 


10° 




\ ^ 

" - 1 \ 


CM 

a 


10° 


10-2 




^ \ 

^ . 1 «. 

^ . 1 V 




10-2 


10-4 


. . 1 .... 1 


\ \ ^ . ^ 

. . 1 . . . . 1. .">.!.... 




10-4 



— , — , — ■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ I ' — ■ — ' I ■ ■ ■ ■ 

Fermion, Pseudocalar Int. 




10 50 100 

M (GeV) 



500 1000 



10 50 100 

M (GeV) 



500 1000 



104 
102 
10° 
10-2 
10-4 



10 

Fermion, Scalar Int. 



i0-« 



10" 



10" 




104 U 
102 
10° 



"T" 



T" 



-JO 



■8 Fermion, Pseudocalar Int. 



10" 

-~.10"° 



10" 




10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



XI 



104 


■ ~ J ^ 1 . 1 < < < < 1 
; '"■"^--.10"° 


,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,, 
Fermion, Vector Int._ 




io4 


102 


"^^--..10"' ~~~~ 

10"° ~~~~ 






102 


10° 


'^-.^10"' 




CM 

a 


10° 


10~2 


^ ^ ^ ^ . . 






10-2 


10-4 


. . 1 .... 1 


. 1 .... 1 . 1 . . . . 




10-4 



""'--li'^^ Fermion, Axial Int. 
'-----.10"' 



"--V 10" 



10" 



10" 




10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



FIG. 1: The thermal relic density of fermionic dark matter with scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial interactions. In 
the upper left and upper right frames, results are given for effective couplings to each species of standard model fermion of 
Gf X (1 GeV/m/) = IQ-*, IQ-'^, IQ-^, IQ-^, and 10-*GeV-^ In the remaining four frames, results are shown for G/ = IQ-*, 
10-^ 10-®, 10-^ and 10-'' GeV-^ If resonances, coannihilations, or annihilations to final states other than fermion-antifermion 
pairs are significant, the relic abundance is expected to be significantly lower than shown here. Also shown as horizontal lines 
is the range of the cold dark matter density measured by WM AP [ij • 



The WIMP-nucleus cross section for spin-independent elastic scattering is given by 
where A and Z are the atomic mass and atomic number of the target nuclei. The effective couplings to protons and 



6 




FIG. 2: The spin-independent WIMP-nucleon elastic scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass for a fermionic 
WIMP interacting through scalar (left) and vector (right) interactions. Results are given for effective scalar couplings to each 
quark species of Gq x (1 GeV/rriq) = 10~*, 10~^, 10^'', 10^^, and 10~* GeV~^ and for effective vector couplings to each quark 
of Gq = 10"*, 10"'^, 10"'', 10"^, and 10"* GeV"^. Also shown as solid curves are the current upper limits from the CDMS [H 
and XENON ^T§\ experiments. We do not show the case in which the scalar couplings are equal for each quark species, as its 
leads to much larger cross sections and are strongly excluded. 



neutrons, /p,n, can be written in terms of the WIMP's couplings to quarks. In the case of a scalar interaction 

q—u,a,s q—c.b,t 

where Gq denotes the WIMP's effective Fermi coupling for a given quark species. The first term reflects scattering 
with light quarks, while the second term accounts for interactions with gluons through a heavy quark loop. The 
values of /^^'"■* are proportional to the matrix element, (qq), of quarks in a nucleon and have been measured to 
be = o!o20± 0.004, /^^ = 0.026 ± 0.005, = 0.118 ± 0.062, = 0.014 ± 0.003, /^^ = 0.036 ± 0.008, 

/^^ = 0.118 ± 0.062 [111. The value of /^''^"^ is given by f!f^'^ = 1 - J2u,d,s /r,"^ and is approximately 0.84 and 0.83 
for protons and neutrons, respectively. 

In the case of a Yukawa-like scalar interaction (Gq cx m^), there are significant contributions from both light and 
heavy quarks. In the case in which the ratio of the effective scalar coupling to the quark mass, Gs^q/niq, is the same 
for each quark species, we arrive at a cross section per nucleon of 



3 X 10"'^ pb X 



Gs,, X (1 GeV/m,) 



lO-'^GeV" 



(22) 



In contrast, if we consider the case in which the scalar couplings to all quarks types are equal (universal couplings), 
the resulting cross section is much larger: 



axp~3x lO-^b X f ^ — ^) . (23) 

The cross section for the scalar case of Gq oc niq is shown in the left frame of Fig. ^ and compared to the 
current upper limits from the CDMS [l3] and XENON [l^ experiments. For fermionic WIMPs heavier than about 
10 GeV, scalar couplings are constrained to be smaller than Gs,q x (IGeV/rriq) ~ 10^^. Comparing this result to 
those shown in Fig. [l] we find that fermionic WIMPs must either be heavier than the top quark threshold to avoid 
being overproduced in the early universe and avoid direct detection constraints or some combination of resonance 
annihilation, coannihilation, or annihilations to final states other than quarks must dominate the thermal freeze-out 
process. 

If instead we were to consider the case of universal scalar couplings to all quark types, as applied in Eq. (|23p . we 
find an even more stringent constraint. In particular, the entire range of couplings that could potentially lead to 
an acceptable relic density is excluded by current direct detection constraints by multiple orders of magnitude. We 
therefore conclude that if a WIMP is to annihilate largely through scalar interactions, its couplings to light quarks 



7 



must be considerably suppressed (such as in the case of Yukawa- hke couplings, G/ oc m/) if it is to avoid being 
excluded by current direct detection constraints. 

In contrast to scalar interactions, pseudoscalar interactions do not lead to a significant elastic scattering cross section 
between WIMPs and nucleons in the low velocity limit. The reason for this can be seen if one explicitly computes the 
quark contribution of the vertex, 975(7, which goes to zero in the limit of zero momentum p^ . The same conclusion 
is reached in Ref . |1C| , in which the relevant nuclear matrix elements are calculated. 

In the case of a Dirac (non-Majorana) fermion, a vector coupling can also generate a spin-independent elastic 
scattering cross section. In contrast to the scalar case, a vector interaction will be dominated by couplings to the up 
and down quarks in the nucleon: 

If we assume Gv,u ~ Gv,d, this leads to a spin-independent elastic scattering cross section (per nucleon) of a^_p « 
2 X 10~^pb X (Gv/10~^ GeV~^)^. From the right frame of Fig. [21 we see that this cross section is in excess of current 
experimental limits unless Gy ^ 10^^ GcV^^. Comparing this to Fig.[l] however, we find that in order for a 

Dirac fermionic WIMP with a mass in the range 10 to 1000 GeV to annihilate largely through a vector interaction, it 
must be depleted in the early universe by some combination of resonance annihilation, coannihilation, or annihilations 
to final states other than quarks if it is to avoid direct detection constraint without being overproduced in the early 
universe. This conclusion also holds for a fermionic WIMP with a tensor interaction. 

We would like to emphasize that the elastic scattering cross sections we have calculated here should be thought of 
as approximate upper limits (again, assuming no late time decays or other non-thermal mechanisms are responsible 
for the dark matter density). If coannihilations, resonances, or annihilations to leptons, gauge or Higgs bosons 
dominated the freeze-out process, then the effective couplings required to generate the observed relic abundance may 
be considerably smaller, leading to reduced elastic scattering cross sections with nuclei. 



C. Neutrinos From WIMP Annihilations In The Sun 



If WIMPs accumulate in the core of the Sun in sufficient numbers, their annihilations can potentially produce an 
observable flux of high-energy neutrinos [20| . WIMPs in the Solar System elastically scatter with nuclei in the Sun 
and become gravitationally bound at the rate approximately given by [2lj | 

_i / cTx-p.SD + cTx-p.si + 0.07 cr^-Ho.si \ / 100 GeV\ ^ 



Co « 3.35 X IQl^-l "X-p..D^.x-p,^i^u.u,.^-He,M ^uuv^ 

\ 10 7pb J \ J 

where a^-p^sD, a^-p^si and cr^-HcSi are the spin-dependent (SD) and spin-independent (SI) elastic scattering cross 
sections of WIMPs with hydrogen (protons) and helium nuclei, respectively. The factor of 0.07 reflects the solar 
abundance of helium relative to hydrogen and well as dynamical factors and form factor suppression. 
The number of WIMP in the Sun, N, evolves as 

N = Cq- AqN^, (26) 

where Aq is the WIMP's annihilation cross section times the relative velocity divided by the effective volume of the 
Sun's core. The present annihilation rate in the Sun is given by 

F = ^AqN' = i Co tanh^ (^Q^io) , (27) 

where io ~ 4.5 billion years is the age of the solar system. The annihilation rate is maximized when it reaches 
equilibrium with the capture rate {i.e., when CqAqIq S> 1). These WIMP annihilations lead to a flux of neutrinos 
at Earth given by 

where Cq is the capture rate of WIMPs in the Sun, F^q is the non-equilibrium suppression factor (approximately 1 for 
capture-annihilation equilibrium), Dq_^ is the Earth-Sun distance and {dNy / dEi,)^"^^ is the neutrino spectrum from 
the Sun per WIMP annihilating, which depends on the mass of the WIMP and its dominant annihilation modes. Due 
to — Vr vacuum oscillations, the muon neutrino fiux observed at Earth is the average of the z/^ and components. 



8 



Muon neutrinos produce muons in charged current interactions with nuclei in the material inside or near the detector 
volume of a high-energy neutrino telescope. The rate of neutrino-induced muons observed in a high-energy neutrino 
telescope is given by 

iVcvents^y J^^{E,^,y)R^{{l-y)E,)A,sdE,^dy, (29) 

where da,y/dy{E^^,y) is the ncutrino-nuclcon charged current interaction cross section, (1 — y) is the fraction of 
neutrino energy that goes into the muon and A^g is the effective area of the detector. The factor is either the 
distance a muon of energy E^ = {1 — y) E^, travels before falling below the muon energy threshold of the experiment, 
called the muon range, or the width of the detector, whichever is larger. The spectrum and flux of neutrinos generated 
in WIMP annihilations is determined by the WIMP's mass and leading annihilation modes. 

If the rate at which WIMPs are captured in the Sun is dominated by spin-independent scattering, one can translate 
the bounds from CDMS [l3| and XENON flS] into an upper limit on the neutrino flux. In fact, even for the 
maximum elastic scattering cross section allowed by these experiments, no more than a few neutrino-induced muons 
will be generated per year in a kilometer-scale detector [23 |. This is well below the sensitivity of next generation 
neutrino telescopes such as IceCube [1^. Thus, if we are to detect WIMP annihilations using neutrino telescopes, 
the capture rate must be dominated by spin-dependent scattering, which is far less constrained by direct detection 
experiments. 

The WIMP-nucleus spin-dependent elastic scattering cross section is approximately given by 

32 M^m^ 



where 



A 



1 
J 



9= 



(31) 



In these expressions, J is the nuclear spin, and (S'p_„) are the expectation values of the spin content of protons 
or neutrons in the target nucleus. The quantities Aq are coefficients of the matrix element of the axial current in a 
nucleon, with values given by A^f^ = a|;"^ = 0.78 ±0.02, A|f' = a1"^ = -0.48 ±0.02, and A'f^ = aI"' = -0.15 ±0.02. 
Inserting these values into the above equations, the WIMP-proton, spin-dependent cross section reduces to 

6m2 . _ _ ,2 



^ [0.78 Ga^u - 0.48 GA,d - 0.15 Ga,s] , (32) 



TT 

2 



which, for approximately universal couplings, yields 

a^p ~ 10-" pb X ( ^^'^ . (33) 

VlO-"GeV-V 

Currently, the strongest constraints on spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering come from the COUPP [1^ and 
KIMS collaborations, which exclude cross sections larger than a^p ^ 10~^ pb. This limit, however, is well beyond 
the range anticipated for a thermal WIMP. 

In Fig. [31 we plot the annihilation rate of WIMPs in the Sun for the case of a fermionic WIMP with axial couplings 
to quarks. To be detected over the atmospheric neutrino background, the annihilating WIMPs must generate tens 
of neutrino-induced muons per year in a kilometer-scale, high-energy neutrino telescope, such as IceCube. In Fig. [3] 
we also plot the approximate annihilation rate required to generate 20 events (above a muon threshold energy of 50 
GeV) per year at IceCube. This reach is shown as solid lines for the case of WIMP annihilations to bottom quarks 
or gauge bosons. 



^ Notice that in the case of universal couplings there is an approximate cancellation of terms in Eq. I|32|l . Departures from the universality 
of Ga,u^ Ga d ^^nd Ga,s^ however, could lead to larger cross sections than those estimated here. Considering the axial couplings of the 
Z boson to fermions, for example, the opposite signs of the couplings to up and down-type fermions leads to an elastic scattering cross 
section about 10^ times larger than estimated in Eq. II33I I. 



9 



K 

a 
o 

s 

■3 
a 
< 



1028 
1024 
1020 

12 



10 



10 



8 



1 

10-" 


' ' 1 


1 , , 1 , , , , 

Fermion, Axial Int. 










- 10-' 






. io-» 




/ 


1 




/ 

1 . 1 . . . . 



50 



100 200 
(GeV) 



500 



1000 



FIG. 3: The annihilation rate of WIMPs in the Sun, as a function of the WIMP's mass, for a fermionic WIMP interacting with 
standard model particles through axial interactions. As before, results are given for effective couplings to each fermion species 
of Gg = 10"*, 10"^ 10"*', 10"^ and 10"* GeV"^ Also shown as solid lines are the approximate rates needed to be detected by 
an experiment such as IceCube (20 events per square kilometer, year with a 50 GeV muon energy threshold). The solid lines 
denote the reach for WIMPs annihilating to bottom quarks (top) or gauge bosons (bottom). 



D. Indirect Searches With Gamma- Rays and Charged Particles 

In addition to neutrinos, products of WIMP annihilations including gamma rays [1^, electrons, positrons [27l[28j. 
and antiprotons [1^, [2^ could also potentially provide detectable signals. The reach of these efforts depend on a 
combination of astrophysical inputs, such as the distribution of dark matter in the Galaxy and the properties of the 
galactic magnetic field, and on the WIMP's properties, namely its mass, annihilation cross section, and dominant 
annihilation modes. Although we will not, in this article, discuss the astrophysical inputs impacting such searches, 
we will briefly comment on the WIMP's annihilation cross section as it appears in our model-independent analysis. 

If we fix the WIMP's effective couplings such that its annihilation cross section at the temperature of freeze-out 
is equal to the value required to yield the observed dark matter abundance, then we can proceed to estimate its 
annihilation cross section in the low- velocity limit (the relevant limit for indirect searches). From Eqs. (|13m7[) . we see 
that fermionic WIMPs annihilating through pseudoscalar, vector, and tensor interactions do so largely through terms 
for which av is constant, rather than av (x v'^. This leads to a low- velocity annihilation cross section of approximately 
3 X 10"^^ cm'^/s in these cases. Scalar or axial interaction forms, in contrast, lead to an annihilation cross section 
that scales as av cx u^, and thus imply rates suppressed by a factor of about 10"^ for WIMP annihilations in the 
Galactic halo. 



E. General Conclusions for a Fermionic WIMP 



Our model- independent results for a fermionic WIMP are summarized in Fig.[4l In each frame, the solid dark (black) 
line denotes the combinations of WIMP masses and couplings that lead to a thermal abundance of dark matter equal 
to the value measured by WMAP [l^. As we have pointed out, however, these calculations were performed under the 
assumption that resonances, coannihilations, and annihilations to gauge and Higgs bosons do not play a significant 
role in the thermal freeze-out process. If any of these processes have significant effects, the WIMP couplings could be 
considerably smaller while still producing a dark matter abundance consistent with WMAP. 

Although Eqs. ((6] |10|) do not form a complete set of Lorentz-invariant interaction Lagrangians, they are representa- 



10 



^ 10-8 _ 
O 

10-9 



Fermion, Scalar Int. 



n^h too low- 



Excluded by 
CDMS/XENON 



Allowed 



Fermion, Pseudoscalar Intr 



f!^h too low 



10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 

M (GeV) 




10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 

(GeV) 



Fermion, Pseudoscalar Int: 




Excluded by 
CDMS/XENON 



10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 

(GeV) 



Fermion, Vector Int. 



n^h too low 



Excluded by CDMS/XENON 
(Dirac Case) 



Allowed 

_l ■ ■ ■ ■ I L. 



X lo- 
ci. 

o 

10" 



10" 



Allowed 



10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 

(GeV) 



> 

(U 



10 20 50 100 800 

(GeV) 



500 



1000 



10" 



10" 



10" 



10" 



1 .. 1 .... 1 1 
P~~~~~-~-.,,,^^^ Fermion, 


. 1 . . . , 
Axial Int. - 




too low 


IceCube Reach <^^^^ ^^-^IH::::^ 




Allowed 




1 .. 1 .... 1 1 


. 1 . . . . 



10 20 50 100 800 

(GeV) 



500 



1000 



FIG. 4: A summary of the constraints on a fermionic WIMP with scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, and axial interactions, including 
regions excluded and allowed by direct and indirect detection experiments (note that WIMPs with pseudoscalar and axial 
interactions are unconstrained by direct detection experiments). If resonances, coannihilations, or annihilations to final states 
other than fermion-antifermion pairs are significant, smaller couplings than those shown here can lead to the measured relic 
abundance. See the text for more details. 



11 



tive of a larger set of combinations of interactions: 



Scalar-Pseudoscalar (SP): = ^^^XXflbf (34) 
Pseudoscalar-Scalar (PS): ^ ^ ^^^Xl'^xlf (35) 
Vector- Axial Vector (VA): ^ ^ Xl^xflt^lsf (36) 



Axial Vector-Vector (AV): if = ^^X7^7^x/7p/ (37) 

v2 



Up to factors of 1 — mj/rri^, WIMPs with interactions of these types will have annihilation cross sections and relic 
densities determined by the WIMP interaction form (the left side of the Lagrangian), and elastic scattering cross 
sections determined by the fermion interaction form (the right side of the Lagrangian). Consequently, interaction 
Lagrangians of these forms will provide results that are redundant with what we have obtained here. We will consider 
interaction Lagrangians of this form for scalar WIMPs, where we obtain non-redundant results. 

To roughly estimate the effect of a potential resonance, consider a WIMP annihilating through the s-channel 
exchange of a mediator, ip, to fermion-antifermion pairs. If ^ 2m^ then we can write an effective Fermi coupling, 
Gf ~ \/2X^Xf /m^, where A^^. and A/ are the mediator's couphngs to the WIMPs and final state fermions, respectively. 
If the mediator's mass is not much greater than twice the WIMP mass, however, the effects of the resonance on the 
annihilation cross section can be significant. In particular, we can roughly estimate an effective Gf for calculating 
the WIMP's annihilation cross section: 

r< ^/2A^A/ 

^^■^""~[(M^-4Af2)2 + Af^r2]i/2' ^''^) 

where is the width of the mediating particle. For a 450 GeV mediator with a narrow width and a 200 GeV WIMP, 
the effective value of G/^Ann is a factor of about 5 larger than is found neglecting the effects of the resonance, which 
enables the measured dark matter abundance to be generated with a product of couplings (i.e., A^A/) that is smaller 
by a factor of 5 than those shown to be required in Fig.|4l In other words, the effective value of G/ for the purposes of 
calculating the WIMP annihilation cross section (but not for calculating elastic scattering cross sections) is increased 
by a factor of 5 in this case. For the same 450 GeV mediator and a 220 GeV WIMP, the resonance enhances the 
effective value of G/ by a factor approximately 20. Although one should integrate the cross section over the thermal 
distribution to accurately account for the effect of a resonance on the relic abundance p^ . we provide this estimate 
to illustrate how such a feature is qualitatively expected to impact the resulting dark matter density. 

This effect is important in interpreting the constraints from direct detection experiments and the reach of neutrino 
telescopes shown in Fig. 21 Consider, for example, the case of scalar interactions with G/ cx to/ shown in the upper 
left frame. Although by simply comparing the dark solid line to the lighter (blue) solid line, the constraints from 
CDMS and XENON appear to rule out a WIMP with the measured relic abundance unless it is heavier than about 
200 GeV, this conclusion can be relaxed considerably if the WIMP annihilates through a resonance. Similarly, if 
coannihilations or annihilations to gauge/Higgs bosons play an important role in the freeze-out process, the required 
effective couplings will be considerably reduced as well. 

Furthermore, departures from the universality of the WIMP's couplings to fermions can also alter the results 
summarized here. WIMPs that couple preferentially to light (heavy) quarks will be more (less) significantly constrained 
by direct detection experiments and neutrino telescopes. In an extreme case, we can imagine a WIMP that annihilates 
almost entirely through couplings to gauge boson final states rather than fermions, which in turn would lead to highly 
suppressed elastic scattering cross sections. 

To summarize our results for the case of a fcrmionic WIMP, we find: 

• Fermionic WIMPs with scalar interactions are required by direct detection constraints to either 1) be heavier 
than about 200 GeV, 2) annihilate in the early universe through a resonance or coannihilations, or 3) couple 
preferentially to leptons, heavy quarks, or gauge/Higgs bosons. The case of universal couplings is very strongly 
disfavored by current direct detection constraints (see the middle-left frame of Fig.[3]). 

• The conclusions described for a fermionic WIMP with scalar interactions also apply to the case of a Dirac 
fermionic WIMP with vector interactions and fermionic WIMPs with tensor interactions. This is the reason 
why a heavy 4th generation Dirac neutrino, for example, is no longer an acceptable candidate for dark matter. 



12 



• Fermionic WIMPs with uniquely pseudoscalar or axial interactions are not constrained by direct detection 
experiments at this time. 

• Next generation, kilometer-scale neutrino telescopes will be capable of constraining the case of fermionic WIMPs 
with axial interactions. 



F. Neutralinos as a Case Example of a Fermionic WIMP 



Departing for a moment from our model-independent analysis, we would like to comment on our results as in- 
terpreted within the context of neutralinos, which are attractive dark matter candidates in supersymmetric models 
0. Neutralinos are Majorana fermions, and undergo scalar, psuedoscalar, and axial interactions. Roughly speaking, 
neutralinos will be overproduced in the early universe unless at least one of the following conditions are met: 1) 
they are able to coannihilate efficiently with the lightest stau or other superpartners (the coannihilation region), 2) 
they are able to annihilate efficiently through the CP-odd Higgs boson resonance (the A- funnel region) , 3) they are a 
strongly mixed gaugino-higgsino, leading to large couplings (the focus point region), or 4) much of the supersymmetric 
spectrum is relatively light, making efficient annihilations possible (the bulk region). 

In the A-funnel region, neutralinos annihilate near resonance via pseudoscalar interactions, but also elastically 
scatter through scalar interactions associated with CP-even Higgs exchange (and squark exchange), leading to a 
constraint similar in form to that shown in the upper left frame of Fig. IH but with the solid dark relic abundance 
contour reduced by at least one order of magnitude or more. Both the A-funnel and bulk regions are beginning to 
be significantly explored by direct detection experiments and, in the absence of a positive detection, will be highly 
constrained in the coming years. 

In the focus point region, the neutralino's couplings are enhanced, leading to scalar elastic scattering cross sections 
near the current constraints from CDMS and XENON. Although the CDMS/XENON constraint shown in Fig. His 
somewhat weakened by the the fact that neutralino annihilations in the focus point region proceed largely to gauge 
boson final states, direct detection experiments will essentially close the focus point region if no detection is made in 
the next couple of years. Furthermore, focus point neutralinos have sizable couplings to the Z boson, leading to large 
spin-dependent elastic scattering cross sections through axial interactions. As mentioned before, the opposite sign of 
the Z's couplings to up and down type fermions leads to a much greater reach for IceCube than is shown in the lower 
right frame of Fig. [4l Hundreds or thousands of events per year at IceCube are predicted throughout much of the 
focus point region. 

Finally, neutralinos in the stau coannihilation region are the least constrained by direct and indirect searches, as 
their couplings can be very small without leading to their overproduction in the early universe. 



III. SCALAR DARK MATTER 



In this section, we consider the case of a scalar WIMP, with scalar and vector, as well as combinations of 
scalar/pseudoscalar and vector/axial vector, interaction forms. In analogy with Eqs. (j34| -[5)). we write 

Scalar (S): ^ = ^^Ul f (39) 
v2 

Vector (V): if - (40) 

Scalar-Pseudoscalar (SP): ^ = -^0(/)/75/ (41) 

v2 

Vector-Axial Vector (VA): ^ = ^^^^4>%(l)fjf,j5f, (42) 

V 2 



where denotes the scalar WIMP. Note that in Ff has mass dimension of —1 for the scalar and scalar-pseudoscalar 
interactions, and —2 for vector and vector-axial vector interactions. 



13 



A. Scalar WIMP Annihilation and Relic Density 

For scalar WIMPs, the annihilation cross sections to fermion-antifcrmion pairs are given by 

(s - Amj) 



167r 



/ 



n2 h~ ^"^/ 



2(s-4M2)(s + 2m2) 



3s 



1 , s-Am) 



IGtt 



s - 4M2 





2(s-4M2)(s-4mp 



3s 



(43) 
(44) 
(45) 
(46) 



Expanding in powers of relative velocity, we arrive at 



as\v\ 



av\v\ 



<TSP\V\ 



crvA\v\ 



f 












1, jvV j 





(47) 

(48) 
(49) 

(50) 



To calculate the thermal relic abundance of a scalar WIMP, we follow the same procedure as described in Sec. [Ill 
We show the results of this calculation in Fig. [5l 



B. Direct and Indirect Detection 

The calculation of the elastic scattering cross section for a scalar WIMP with nuclei is similar to that described for 
a fermionic WIMP in Sec. Ill Bl Although we will not repeat the details of this calculation here, we will comment on 
the most important differences. 

In the case of a scalar WIMP with a scalar interaction with quarks, the effective coupling Fq possesses a different 
dimensionality than Gq. This, in turn, leads to a stronger dependence on the WIMP mass. In particular, heavier 
WIMPs have a somewhat smaller elastic scattering cross section and thus are less constrained by direct detection 
experiments. 

The elastic scattering cross sections for a scalar WIMP are shown in Fig. [S) By comparing Figs. and [SI we can 
see that scalar interactions of the form Ff oc nif that lead to an acceptable relic density also exceed direct detection 
constraints if < rrit- For WIMPs heavier than the top quark, smaller couplings allow a WIMP to evade current 
direct detection constraints while also yielding an acceptable dark matter abundance. As in the fermionic case, we 
find that a scalar WIMP that annihilates largely through universal scalar couplings (equal for all fermion species) will 
be essentially excluded by existing direct detection constraints. 

Scalar WIMPs with vector interactions are also severely constrained by present direct detection experiments. By 
comparing the lower frames of Figs. [5] and [SI we find that scalar WIMPs with vector interactions with fermions 
must be heavier than several TeV to evade current elastic scattering bounds, unless resonances, coannihilations or 
annihilations to gauge/Higgs bosons play an important role, in which case lighter WIMPs may also be allowed. 

Spin-dependent scattering between scalar WIMPs and nuclei occurs only in the case of vector-axial vector interac- 
tions. Although the capture rate of scalar WIMPs in the Sun may potentially be large in this case, the annihilation 
cross section scales with (see Eg. ISO)) , thus suppressing the annihilation rate in the Sun's core, and along with it 



14 



■Q. 



10^ 


, ,,,,,,, 


,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,, 
Scalar DM, Scalar Int^ 




---- — JO-' 


Ff a uif 
1 


10^ 


^-^.10-= 


\ \ 


lO" 




\ 


10~2 




\ 


10-4 


. . 1 .... 1 


I 

\ 

. . 1 .... 1 . "r-.-TTT--' 



10' 



6 



104 t- 

,2 



10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 




10' 

C* 10' 
10- 
10- 



10^ 
104 
10^ 
10° 
10~2 
4 



,0 U 

2 



I ' ' ' ' I 
10-' 



, — I I ' ' ' ' I ' — ' — ' I ' ' ' 

Scalar DM, Scalar Int. 



10- 



10- 



10-* 



_i_ 



10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



10 



, ,,,,,,, 
Scalar DM, 


,,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,, 
Scalar— Pseudoscalar Int. - 


^10"' 


F, a 


io-» 












10-^ ---- 














.. 1 .... 1 .. 1 .... 1 





10 50 100 

M^ (GeV) 



500 1000 



5 10 50 100 

M^ (GeV) 



500 1000 



10 



10- 



10^ 

104 

10^ 

10° 
2 



Scalar DM, Scalar— Pseudoscalar Int. 



10- 



10- 



10- 



iQ- 



■s. 

a 



io4 

10^ 

10° 
10~2 
10-4 U 



10 " 


. 1 .... 1 . . . 1 . . . . 
Scalar DM, 


^^---..^ 10-' 


Vector-Axial Int. 


"'^----.jo-' 












.. 1 .... 1 





10 50 100 

M^ (GeV) 



500 1000 



10 50 100 

M^ (GeV) 



500 1000 



FIG. 5: The thermal relic density of scalar dark matter with scalar, vector, scalar-psuedoscalar, and vector-axial vector 
interactions with standard model particles. In the upper left and center right frames, results are given for effective couplings 
to each species of standard model fermion of Ff x (1 GeV/m/) x {M^/M^) = , 10-^ and 10"" GeV'^ In the other 

four frames, results for Ff = 10"*, 10-^ 10~^ and 10"* GeV"^ are given. If resonances, coannihilations, or annihilations 

to final states other than fermion-antifermion pairs are significant, the relic abundance is expected to be significantly lower 
than shown here. Also shown as horizontal lines is the range of the cold dark matter density measured by WMAP |14j. 



the resulting high-energy neutrino flux. Scalar WIMPs are, therefore, not expected to be within the reach of IceCube 
or other planned high-energy neutrino telescopes. 

The prospects for the indirect detection of scalar WIMPs using gamma-rays or charged particles (e^ , p) once again 
depend on the relationship between the WIMP's annihilation cross section and relative velocity. In the case of scalar 
couplings, the annihilation cross section, av, is nearly independent of of the WIMPs' relative velocity, whereas vector 
interactions yield av o: . As a result, the indirect detection prospects for a scalar WIMP with vector interactions 
are expected to be highly suppressed. 



15 



10~2 
10-4 



3- 10-6 
a. 

z 10-8 
•o- 
b 



10 



10 



10 



-10 



-12 



-14 



. . 1 , , . . 1 


, , 1 .... 1 , . . 1 . . , , 

Scalar, Scalar Int. - 
Ff a m, 






------ lO"' 

XENON 


CDMS 


"""■"---.-^^10-° 

.. 1 .... 1 





lO'^ 



10" 



b 10-6 



10" 



5 10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



10' 



-12 





Scalar, Vector Int. - 


lo-" 


10"^ 


io-« ' 


loA " 




/ 

XENON 

.. 1 .... 1 


\ - 

CDMS 

.. 1 .... 1 



5 10 50 100 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



FIG. 6: The spin-independent WIMP-nucleon elastic scattering cross section as a function of WIMP mass for a scalar WIMP 
interacting through scalar (left) and vector (right) interactions. Results are given for effective scalar couplings to each quark 



species of j- q 



10 ,10 , and 10 GeV and for effective vector couplings to each quar k of 



Fg X (IGeV/m,) = 10-^10-' 
Fq = 10"**, 10"^, lO"'*, 10"^, and 10"" GeV"^. Also shown as solid curves are the current upper limits from the CDMS [IJ] and 
XENON [3 experiments. We do not show the case in which the scalar couplings are equal for each quark species, as its leads 
to much larger cross sections and are strongly excluded. 



C. General Conclusions for a Scalar WIMP 



Our model-independent results for a scalar WIMP are summarized in Fig. [T] In each frame, the sohd dark (black) 
line denotes the combinations of WIMP mass and couplings that lead to a thermal abundance equal to the measured 
dark matter density, again in the absence of significant effects of resonances, coannihilations, or annihilations to 
gauge/Higgs bosons. The lighter (blue) curve in each frame denotes the current constraints from the direct detection 
experiments CDMS and XENON. 

To summarize our results for the case of a scalar WIMP, we find: 

• Scalar WIMPs with scalar interactions with standard model fermions are required by direct detection constraints 
to 1) be heavier than about 80 GeV, 2) annihilate in the early universe through a resonance or coannihilations, 
or 3) couple preferentially to leptons, heavy quarks, or gauge/Higgs bosons. The case of universal couplings is 
very strongly disfavored by current direct detection constraints (see the upper-right frame of Fig. [7]). 

• The conditions described for a scalar WIMP with scalar interactions also apply to the case of a scalar WIMP with 
vector interactions. In the absence of resonances, coannihilations, and/or annihilations to gauge/Higgs bosons, 
current direct detection constraints exclude such a dark matter candidate by multiple orders of magnitude. 

• Neutrino telescopes are not likely to constrain scalar WIMPs beyond the level already achieved by direct detec- 
tion experiments. 



IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 



Even if the Large Hadron Collider does not reveal physics beyond the standard model, a dark matter candidate 
in the form of a weakly interacting massive particle may still exist. In this article, we have studied how the nature 
of such a WIMP could be deduced by its signatures in astrophysical experiments. In our analysis, we have taken a 
general and model-independent approach, considering fermionic or scalar WIMPs with a variety of interaction forms. 

In Tablelll we summarize our findings. For each combination of spin and interaction form, we indicate the constraints 
placed by and the prospects for direct detection experiments, high-energy neutrino telescopes, and indirect detection 
experiments using gamma-rays or charged particles. Under the column of direct detection, we use the phrases "strongly 
excluded," "weakly excluded," or "within near future reach," to denote the sensitivity or prospects for each case. By 
"strongly excluded," we indicate instances in which the effective couplings to quarks, as relevant to elastic scattering 
with nuclei, must be suppressed by more than a factor of ten relative to the value required to generate thermally the 
observed dark matter abundance. As we have discussed, such a suppression could result from resonant annihilations, 
coannihilations, or annihilations to gauge/Higgs bosons. The label "weakly excluded," in contrast, indicates only that 



16 



Scalar, Scalar Int. 




10" 



10~3 
> 10-4 

I 10-5 
> 

O 10~° 
« 10-7 

m 

10" " 



10 20 50 100 200 

(GeV) 



500 1000 




50 100 800 
(GeV) 



500 1000 



10 



Scalar, Scalar— Pseudoscalar Int. 

QAi^ too low 



Allowed 



> 

O 



10 20 50 100 200 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



10" 



10" 



10" 



10" 



10" 



10 20 50 100 200 

(GeV) 



500 1000 





1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 
Scalar, Scalar- 


1 ' ' 1 ' ' ' ' : 

-Pseudoscalar Int. ; 






F, a 






jn^h^ too low 




Allowed 






1 . 1 .... 1 


1 . 1 . . . . 



20 50 100 800 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



1 


' 1 ' ' ' ' 1 1 

Scalar, Vector- 


. 1 ' ' ' ' 
-Axial Int. 






too low 




Allowed 




1 


1 .... 1 1 


. 1 . . . . 



10 20 50 100 200 

(GeV) 



500 1000 



FIG. 7: A summary of the constraints on a scalar WIMP with scalar or vector interactions. If resonances, coannihilations, or 
annihilations to final states other than fermion-antifermion pairs are significant, smaller couplings than those shown here can 
lead to the measured relic abundance. See the text for more details. 



the case is excluded if the effective couplings to quarks are not suppressed by such effects. Lastly, the label "within 
near-future reach" indicates an elastic scattering cross section (without suppression) that is within approximately two 
order of magnitudes of current direct detection limits. 

Under the column of neutrino telescopes, we classify each case as either not sensitive or sensitive over a range 
of WIMP masses (for next generation experiments, such as IceCube). This evaluation depends on the annihilation 
products of the WIMP, however, and thus are highly approximate. Under the column of gamma-rays and charged 
cosmic rays, we simply indicate whether the WlMP's annihilations are or are not suppressed by the square of the 
WlMP's velocity. If such velocity suppression is present, it is highly unlikely that GLAST, PAMELA or other planned 
indirect detection experiments will be capable of detecting dark matter. 

This leads us to the most obvious and important question: Will the information provided by direct and indirect 



17 



detection experiments be able to be used to infer the particle nature of the dark matter? Although there are certainly 
cases in which measurements by these experiments will not lead to an unambiguous identification, there are many 
scenarios in which a great deal could be learned. For example, if IceCube or another high-energy neutrino telescope 
were to observe neutrinos from WIMP annihilations in the Sun, we would be able to conclude that the WIMP is likely 
fermionic,'^ and that it possesses an axial interaction with light quarks. By studying the precise rate observed, one 
could also potentially determine whether the WIMP's axial interaction played a dominant or only subdominant role 
in the process of thermal freeze-out. This could be combined with observations from direct detection experiments to 
further constrain the possible interactions possessed by the WIMP. 

As a second possible scenario, imagine that near future direct detection experiments observe a WIMP with a mass 
of a few hundred GeV and that, shortly afterward, GLAST observes a corresponding gamma-ray signal from WIMPs 
annihilating in the halo. From Table HI we can see that this leads us to only three likely possibilities: the WIMP is 
either a fermion with vector interactions, a fcrmion with pseudoscalar-scalar interactions, or a scalar with Yukawa-like 
scalar interactions. 

Although previous studies have shown that dark-matter experiments have the potential to constrain the parameters 
of supersymmetry [ss'l or even to help identify the theoretical framework from which the dark matter arises [s^ , here we 
have demonstrated that a far more model-independent approach can also be fruitful. In particular, without assuming 
any particular theoretical framework or model, we have shown that direct and indirect dark matter experiments can 
be used to considerably constrain the spin and interactions of the dark matter, even in the absence of any discoveries 
at the LHC. 

The results presented in Table U rely upon the set of assumptions we have adopted. It must be noted that if 
dark matter consists of non-thermally produced WIMPs, or of multiple species of particles, our conclusions could be 
altered considerably. Furthermore, one might worry that the effects of resonances, coannihilations, or annihilations 
to gauge/Higgs bosons, which we have largely neglected in our analysis, might dramatically change our conclusions. 
To some degree, however, the impact of such processes are encapsulated in our definitions of "strongly excluded" 
and "weakly excluded", as used in Table [H For example, if a WIMP annihilates largely through a narrow resonance 
such that twice the mass of the WIMP lies within approximately 5% of the exchanged particle, then the effective 
couplings relevant for elastic scattering can be reduced by a factor of ten without the WIMP being overproduced 
in the early universe (see Sec. IIIE[) . This mildly (5% or less) fine-tuned resonance corresponds to the "weakly 
excluded" label used in the table. Anything labeled "strongly excluded" would require the masses to be tuned even 
more precisely to the resonance value to remain viable. Similarly, if a significant fraction of WIMP annihilations in 
the early universe proceeded to a combination of gauge or Higgs bosons, or occurred through coannihilations with 
another species of particle, the elastic scattering cross section could be suppressed. For the scenarios we have labeled 
as "strongly excluded" to have remained hidden from direct detection experiments, however, about 99% or more of 
the annihilations/coannihilations of WIMPs in the early universe must have occurred through such processes. So 
although the conclusions we have reached here are not entirely immune to the inclusion of such effects, they are quite 
robust in all but the most extreme cases. 

In conclusion, we find that in the case that the Large Hadron Collider does not discover physics beyond the standard 
model, astrophysical experiments may still be able to constrain the nature of the dark matter, even without assuming 
supersymmetry or any other specific particle physics framework. In particular, the spin and interaction forms of dark 
matter can potentially be identified by combining results from direct detection experiments, neutrino telescopes, and 
indirect detection experiments using gamma-rays or charged cosmic rays. 



Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank Rakhi Mahbubani, Keith Olive, and Pearl Sandick for illuminating discussions. DH is 
supported by the Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CII11359 with the US Department 



^ More precisely, we could conclude in this case that the dark matter particle is not a scalar. Vector WIMPs, which we have not studied 
in this paper, could also potentially generate an observable flux of high-energy neutrinos [32l |. 



18 



Fermionic Dark Matter 



Interaction 


Direct Detection 


Neutrino Telescopes 


7-rays, e*, p 


Scalar 


Strongly Excluded f» 10 - 100 GeV 


Not Sensitive 


Suppressed by 


{Gf oc nif) 


Weakly Excluded f» 100 - 200 GeV 
Within Near Future Reach « 200 - 300 GeV 






Scalar 


Strongly Excluded « 10 GeV- 10 TeV 


NA 


Suppressed by 


{Gf Universal) 








Pseudoscalar 


Not Sensitive 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 


Vector/Tensor 


Strongly Excluded ^10- 350 GeV 
Weakly Excluded 350 GeV- 2 TeV 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 


Axial 


Not Sensitive 


Sensitive ~ 100 - 500 GeV 


Suppressed by «^ 


Scalar-Pseudoscalar 


Not Sensitive 


Not Sensitive 


Suppressed by v'^ 


Pseudoscalar- Scalar 


Weakly Excluded M-^ « 10 - 180 GeV 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 


{Gf oc nif) 


Within Near Future Reach « 180 - 800 GeV 






Vector- Axial 


Not Sensitive 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 


Axial- Vector 


Strongly Excluded « 10 GeV-2 TeV 
Weakly Excluded ^ 2 - W TeV 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 



Scalar Dark Matter 



Interaction 


Direct Detection 


Neutrino Telescopes 


7-rays, e=^, p 


Scalar 

{Ff oc TUf) 


Weakly Excluded « 10 - 70 GeV 
Within Near Future Reach « 70 - 200 GeV 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 


Scalar 
{Ff Universal) 


Strongly Excluded M4, « 10 GeV- 10 TeV 


NA 


Unsuppressed 


Vector 


Strongly Excluded « 10 GeV-1 TeV 
Weakly Excluded « 1 - 5 TeV 


Not Sensitive 


Suppressed by 


Scalar-Pseudoscalar 


Not Sensitive 


Not Sensitive 


Unsuppressed 


Vector- Axial 


Not Sensitive 


Not Sensitive 


Suppressed by 



TABLE I: A summary of our results, describing the sensitivity and prospects for the direct and indirect detection of dark 
matter particles in the various cases we have considered. See the text for explanations for the labels used. 



of Energy and by NASA grant NNX08AH34G. 



[1] G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405, 279 (2005). 

[2] H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419 (1983); J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, 
Nucl. Phys. B 238, 453 (1984); G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6173 (1994) 
|arXiv:hep-ph/9312272 . 

[3] E. W. Kolb and R. Slansky, Phys. Lett. B 135, 378 (1984); H. C. Cheng, J. L. Feng and K. T. Mat chev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8 9, 

211301 (2002) arXiv:hep-ph/0207125 ; D. Hooper and S. Profumo, Phys. Rept. 453, 29 (2007) [arXiv :hep-ph /0701197| . 
[4] G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, NucL Phys. B 650, 391 (2003) arXiv:hep-ph/0206071; 

[5] K. Agashe and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 231805 (2004) arXiv:hep-ph/0403143 ; JCAP 0502, 002 (2005) 
arXiv:hep-ph/0411254 ; K. Agashe, A. Falkowski, I. Low and G. Servant, arXiv;0712.2455 [hep-ph]. 

[6] H. C. Cheng and I. Low, JHEP 0408, 061 (2004) arX iv:hep-ph/04 05243 ; I. Low, JHEP 0410, 067 (2004) 
[arXiv:hep-ph/0409025 ; A. Birkcdal, A. Noble, M. Perelstein and A. ' Spray, Phys. Rev. D 74, 035002 (2006) 
'arXiv:hep-ph/0603077 . 

[7] A. Birkedal, K. Matchev and M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 077701 (2004) ^arXiv:hep-ph /0403004| . 



19 



[8] J. L. Feng, S. Su and F. Takayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 151802 (2006) 'arXiv:hep-ph /0503117] . 
[9] F. Giuliani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 161301 (2004) arXiv:hep-ph/0404010 



[10] A. Kurylov and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 69, 063503 (2004) [ajXiv:hep-ph/0307185| . 
[11] P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 145 (1991). 
[12] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, Front. Phys. 69, 1 (1990); 

[13] K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3191 (1991)^ 

[14] E. Komatsu et al. [WMAP CoUaboration] , arXiv:0803.0547l [astro-ph] . 

[15] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996) 

[16] J. R. Elhs, A. Ferstl and K. A. Ohve, P hys. Lett. B 481, 304 (2000) 

[17] Z. Ahmed et al. [CDMS CoUaboration], larXiv:0802. 35301 [astro-ph]. 

[18] J. Angle et al. [XENON Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 021303 (2008) [arXiv:0706.0039l [astro-ph]]. 
[19] F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, New York, Usa: Wiley ( 1984) 396p. 

[20] L. Bergstrom, J. Edsjo and P. Gondolo, Phys. Rev. D 55, 1765 (1997) arXiv:hep-ph/9607237 ; Phys. Rev. D 58, 103519 

(1998) arXiv:hep-ph/9806293 ; V. D. Barger, F. Halzen, D. Hooper and C. Kao, Phys. Rev. D 65, 075022 (2002). 
[21] A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 388, 338 (1991). 

[22] F. Halzen and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123507 (2006) [a£Xiv:hep-ph/0510048". 

[23] T. DeYoung [IceCube Collaboration], Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20 , 3160 (2005); J. Ahrens et al. [The IceCube Collaboration], 

Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 118, 388 (2003) arXiv:astro-ph/0209556 . 

[24] E. Behnke et al. [COUPP Collaboration], Science 319, 933 (2008) arXiv:0804.2886l [astro-ph]]. 

[25] H. S. Lee. et al. [KIMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 091301 (2007) arXiv:0704.0423 [astro-ph]]. 

[26] L. Bergstrom, P. UUio and J. H. Buckley, Astropart. Phys. 9, 137 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9712318 ; P. UUio, L. Bergstrom, 

J. Edsjo and C. G. Lacey, Phys. Rev. D 66, 123502 (2002 ) [arXiv:as tro-ph/0207125 ; S. Dodelson, D. Hooper and 

P. D. Serpico, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063512 (2008) arXi v:0711.4621l [astro-ph]]: E. A. Baltz et al, JCAP 0807, 013 (2008) 

(arXiv:0806.2911 [astro-ph]]. 

[27] E. A. Baltz and J. Edsjo, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 023511 [arXiv:astro-ph/98 08243 ; D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 

71, 083503 (2005) arXiv:hep-ph/0409104 . 
[28] S. Profumo and P. Ullio, JCAP 0407, 006 (2004) arXiv:hep-ph/0406018 ; 



[29] L. Bergstrom, J. Edsjo and P. Ullio, Astrophys. J. 526, 215 (1999) arXiv:astro-ph/9902012 ; A. Bottino, F. Donate, 
N. Fornengo and P. Salati, Phys. Rev. D 58, 123503 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9804137 ; T. Bringmann and P. Salati, Phys. 
Rev. D 75, 083006 (2007) arXiv:astro-ph/0612514j. ' 

[30] C. Arina and N. Fornengo, JHEP 0711, 029 (2007) | arX iv:0709.4477l [hep-ph]]; T. Falk, K. A. Olive and M. Srednicki, 
Phys. Lett. B 339, 248 (1994) arXiv:hep-ph/9409270'. 

[31] B. A. Dobrescu, D. Hooper, K. Kong and R. Mahbubani, JC AP 0710, 012 (2007) jMXiv:0706.3409] [hep-ph]]. 

[32] D. Hooper and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 67, 055003 (2003) [arXiv:hep -ph /02082^ ~ 

[33] E. A. Baltz, M. Battaglia, M. E. Peskin and T. Wizansky, Phys. Rev. D 74, 103521 (2006) "arXiv:hep-ph/0602187l; 
D. Hooper and A. M. Taylor, JCAP 0703, 017 (2007) arXiv:hep-ph/0607086 ; B. Altunkaynak, M. Holmes and B. D. Nel- 
son, arXiv:0804.2899 [hep-ph]; D. Hooper and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 69, 035001 (2004) arXiv:hep-ph/0309036 . 

[34] D. Hooper and G. Zaharijas, Phys. Rev. D 75, 035010 (2007) arXiv:hep-ph/0612137 ; G. Bertone, D. G. Cerdeno, J. I. Col- 
lar and B. C. Odom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 151301 (2007) [arXiv:0705.2502T Iastro-ph]] .